Religion Discussion Thread

[Constantinopolis]

Anyway, the origin of the Fish Friday is most likely a consequence of the fact that the ancient Greeks were not all that keen on giving up their traditional observance of the fertility goddess, Salacia. You see, the theory that they were supposed to practice abstinence and so forth was never really put very much into practice.

http://skydoginstitute.com/2011/04/04/a ... on-friday/

That's highly unlikely, considering the fact that the vast majority of Greeks are Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christian dietary restrictions require abstaining from all animal products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) on Fridays throughout the year.

Also, all days in Lent are strict fasting days, which means no animal products then either.

Fish Fridays are a Roman Catholic thing. As in, not Greek.

[Christiaanistan]

Anyway, the origin of the Fish Friday is most likely a consequence of the fact that the ancient Greeks were not all that keen on giving up their traditional observance of the fertility goddess, Salacia. You see, the theory that they were supposed to practice abstinence and so forth was never really put very much into practice.

http://skydoginstitute.com/2011/04/04/a ... on-friday/

That's highly unlikely, considering the fact that the vast majority of Greeks are Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christian dietary restrictions require abstaining from all animal products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) on Fridays throughout the year.

Also, all days in Lent are strict fasting days, which means no animal products then either.

Fish Fridays are a Roman Catholic thing. As in, not Greek.

Oh, excuse me. Salacia was Roman, not Greek.

Therefore, yeah, it's a pagan thing. If you are a Roman Catholic and you observe "Fish Fridays," then you are celebrating your pagan heritage, which is a good thing. It is a noble heritage.

[Cyrisnia]

Anyway, the origin of the Fish Friday is most likely a consequence of the fact that the ancient Greeks were not all that keen on giving up their traditional observance of the fertility goddess, Salacia. You see, the theory that they were supposed to practice abstinence and so forth was never really put very much into practice.

http://skydoginstitute.com/2011/04/04/a ... on-friday/

That's highly unlikely, considering the fact that the vast majority of Greeks are Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christian dietary restrictions require abstaining from all animal products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) on Fridays throughout the year.

Fish Fridays are a Roman Catholic thing. As in, not Greek.

Even during Lent, everyone in my family except my dad ate meat on Fridays ( we were Catholic).

[Constantinopolis]

That's highly unlikely, considering the fact that the vast majority of Greeks are Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christian dietary restrictions require abstaining from all animal products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) on Fridays throughout the year.

Also, all days in Lent are strict fasting days, which means no animal products then either.

Fish Fridays are a Roman Catholic thing. As in, not Greek.

Oh, excuse me. Salacia was Roman, not Greek.

Therefore, yeah, it's a pagan thing. If you are a Roman Catholic and you observe "Fish Fridays," then you are celebrating your pagan heritage, which is a good thing. It is a noble heritage.

Any evidence for that? I always assumed that current Roman Catholic dietary restrictions are a watered-down version of ancient customs that were much closer to the Orthodox. So, in other words, I always assumed that they started with no animal products on Fridays (like us), then they allowed dairy and eggs, and then later they allowed fish.

Of course this is only an assumption on my part, but I think it's a reasonable one.

[Christiaanistan]

That's highly unlikely, considering the fact that the vast majority of Greeks are Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christian dietary restrictions require abstaining from all animal products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) on Fridays throughout the year.

Fish Fridays are a Roman Catholic thing. As in, not Greek.

Even during Lent, everyone in my family except my dad ate meat on Fridays ( we were Catholic).

Here is a story explaining one of the reasons why:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 17,1081673

It was an edict by the Bishop of Rome back in 1966.

[Constantinopolis]

By the way, just to clarify things, there are basically four levels of dietary restrictions in the Orthodox Church. In order from the least strict to the most strict, they are as follows:

1. No meat, but fish and everything else is allowed.
2. No meat, no dairy and no eggs, but everything else (including fish) is allowed.
3. No meat, no fish, no dairy and no eggs.
4. No meat, no fish, no dairy, no eggs, no alcohol, and no olive oil (but the olive oil part is rarely remembered and almost never followed).

The precise days when the various levels of dietary restrictions apply vary from year to year depending on a number of factors, but usually about half the days of the year have dietary restrictions of some kind (and of course there are apps and online calendars to help you remember). Naturally, the degree to which people follow these restrictions also varies greatly. Officially, they are strongly suggested, but not mandated.

As I understand it, only the equivalent of level 1 exists in the Roman Catholic Church.

[Christiaanistan]

Oh, excuse me. Salacia was Roman, not Greek.

Therefore, yeah, it's a pagan thing. If you are a Roman Catholic and you observe "Fish Fridays," then you are celebrating your pagan heritage, which is a good thing. It is a noble heritage.

Any evidence for that? I always assumed that current Roman Catholic dietary restrictions are a watered-down version of ancient customs that were much closer to the Orthodox. So, in other words, I always assumed that they started with no animal products on Fridays (like us), then they allowed dairy and eggs, and then later they allowed fish.

Of course this is only an assumption on my part, but I think it's a reasonable one.

Well, for the Norse, it was Freya:

http://www.rainewalker.com/Freya.htm

[Constantinopolis]

Any evidence for that? I always assumed that current Roman Catholic dietary restrictions are a watered-down version of ancient customs that were much closer to the Orthodox. So, in other words, I always assumed that they started with no animal products on Fridays (like us), then they allowed dairy and eggs, and then later they allowed fish.

Of course this is only an assumption on my part, but I think it's a reasonable one.

Well, for the Norse, it was Freya:

http://www.rainewalker.com/Freya.htm

The Norse were, of course, not culturally Roman, and their descendants converted to Christianity very late and spent a relatively short amount of time being Catholic, on the extreme northern fringes of the known world, before the Reformation came around and they became Lutheran. Norse culture did not have much influence on Christian practices anywhere outside Scandinavia itself.

Also, Friday isn't named after Freya, it's named after Frigg. They are probably two different goddesses, although they may not be. Norse paganism had little influence on the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture. Rather, the related (but not identical!) Anglo-Saxon paganism was important for the English language.

Norse gods are big in popular culture, but nearly all of the apparent references to them in the English language are actually references to their related-but-not-identical Anglo-Saxon equivalents.

[Immoren]

Due to my faith. I follow strict dietary restriction of "No Hot Dog Buns".
Or maybe it's more of a guideline.

[Sun Wukong]

Due to my faith. I follow strict dietary restriction of "No Hot Dog Buns".
Or maybe it's more of a guideline.

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

[Immoren]

Due to my faith. I follow strict dietary restriction of "No Hot Dog Buns".
Or maybe it's more of a guideline.

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

I forgot. Or maybe I am confusing the Buddhist with a weasel.

[Christiaanistan]

Well, for the Norse, it was Freya:

http://www.rainewalker.com/Freya.htm

The Norse were, of course, not culturally Roman, and their descendants converted to Christianity very late and spent a relatively short amount of time being Catholic, on the extreme northern fringes of the known world, before the Reformation came around and they became Lutheran. Norse culture did not have much influence on Christian practices anywhere outside Scandinavia itself.

Also, Friday isn't named after Freya, it's named after Frigg. They are probably two different goddesses, although they may not be. Norse paganism had little influence on the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture. Rather, the related (but not identical!) Anglo-Saxon paganism was important for the English language.

Norse gods are big in popular culture, but nearly all of the apparent references to them in the English language are actually references to their related-but-not-identical Anglo-Saxon equivalents.

Applying Occam's Razor, the assertion that they are two altogether different goddesses requires the assumption that two different cultures, in close proximity to each other, created two completely separate goddesses with similar characteristics and names that appear to be cognates but are not really.

The assumption that they are really the same goddess requires fewer assumptions. "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." This doesn't necessarily mean that Freya and Frigg are the same goddess, but it does mean that, if you think that a whole new entity was invented, without connection to the previous one, then you're going to have to do the proving.

[Constantinopolis]

The Norse were, of course, not culturally Roman, and their descendants converted to Christianity very late and spent a relatively short amount of time being Catholic, on the extreme northern fringes of the known world, before the Reformation came around and they became Lutheran. Norse culture did not have much influence on Christian practices anywhere outside Scandinavia itself.

Also, Friday isn't named after Freya, it's named after Frigg. They are probably two different goddesses, although they may not be. Norse paganism had little influence on the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture. Rather, the related (but not identical!) Anglo-Saxon paganism was important for the English language.

Norse gods are big in popular culture, but nearly all of the apparent references to them in the English language are actually references to their related-but-not-identical Anglo-Saxon equivalents.

Applying Occam's Razor, the assertion that they are two altogether different goddesses requires the assumption that two different cultures, in close proximity to each other, created two completely separate goddesses with similar characteristics and names that appear to be cognates but are not really.

The assumption that they are really the same goddess requires fewer assumptions. "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." This doesn't necessarily mean that Freya and Frigg are the same goddess, but it does mean that, if you think that a whole new entity was invented, without connection to the previous one, then you're going to have to do the proving.

Oh, I don't take any sides in the dispute of whether Freya and Frigg are the same goddess or not (it is a significant controversy among scholars, apparently). I don't even know the arguments for the two sides. I'm just pointing out that Norse mythology and Anglo-Saxon mythology are not the same, although they are, of course, related.

[MERIZoC]

Due to my faith. I follow strict dietary restriction of "No Hot Dog Buns".
Or maybe it's more of a guideline.

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

"Can I borrow your ketchup?"

[Sun Wukong]

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

I forgot. Or maybe I am confusing the Buddhist with a weasel.

"Make me one with everything."

[Anollasia]

I try not to eat pork and pork products.

I also eat halal but there are times when I don't.

[Christiaanistan]

Applying Occam's Razor, the assertion that they are two altogether different goddesses requires the assumption that two different cultures, in close proximity to each other, created two completely separate goddesses with similar characteristics and names that appear to be cognates but are not really.

The assumption that they are really the same goddess requires fewer assumptions. "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." This doesn't necessarily mean that Freya and Frigg are the same goddess, but it does mean that, if you think that a whole new entity was invented, without connection to the previous one, then you're going to have to do the proving.

Oh, I don't take any sides in the dispute of whether Freya and Frigg are the same goddess or not (it is a significant controversy among scholars, apparently). I don't even know the arguments for the two sides. I'm just pointing out that Norse mythology and Anglo-Saxon mythology are not the same, although they are, of course, related.

The thing is, it's actually a true statement that Old English is just very badly misspelled Old Norse with shitty grammar.

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t10712.htm

To say that they are "related cultures" is really a bit of an understatement.

On the other hand, although "Ishtar" is a cognate of "Ostara," it would be a stretch to say that they are necessarily the same goddess because it would require the Akkadians to have somehow transmitted the goddess Ishtar, by some proxy, to ancient Germanic peoples, which may have occurred but cannot be assumed without evidence.

On the other hand, I should note that "Freya" may be derived from a calque of the genitive of the word, "Venus":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: ... %8Dz_dagaz

I actually got to that appendix by investigating Wiktionary's suggested etymological relationships of "Friday." Note that Wiktionary is edited similarly to Wikipedia, so it is possible that the theory is not widely accepted in academia.

[Cyrisnia]

New poll up! "Should scripture be seen as true no matter what"?

I think no, mainly because, from my standpoint, there will always be errors when transcribing it, and misconceptions/misinterpretations about it.

[Bearon]

That's a racy poll you've got there.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Scripture is written by men, and thus just as easily corrupted as men. It should not have such extreme faith put into it as one should keep such in mind.

[Bearon]

Scripture is written by men, and thus just as easily corrupted as men. It should not have such extreme faith put into it as one should keep such in mind.

Bite your thumb! My acting scripts must be taken as the one and only truth!

[Constantinopolis]

New poll up! "Should scripture be seen as true no matter what"?

Define "true".

If I write you a poem to express my feelings, and the feelings expressed in it are true (but the poem itself, being a poem, makes no sense at all when read literally), what do you call that? If I tell you a story to make an important point, and the point is true, and the story itself is mostly true but has the occasional inaccuracy in it, what do you call that? If I say, "the sea is blue tonight", but people disagree about which shade of blue I meant and some argue that I was actually wrong because the color of the sea at this place and time would be more accurately described as green, what do you call that?

[Bearon]

New poll up! "Should scripture be seen as true no matter what"?

Define "true".

If I write you a poem to express my feelings, and the feelings expressed in it are true (but the poem itself, being a poem, makes no sense at all when read literally), what do you call that? If I tell you a story to make an important point, and the point is true, and the story itself is mostly true but has the occasional inaccuracy in it, what do you call that? If I say, "the sea is blue tonight", but people disagree about which shade of blue I meant and some argue that I was actually wrong because the color of the sea at this place and time would be more accurately described as green, what do you call that?

Wrong.

[Cyrisnia]

New poll up! "Should scripture be seen as true no matter what"?

Define "true".

If I write you a poem to express my feelings, and the feelings expressed in it are true (but the poem itself, being a poem, makes no sense at all when read literally), what do you call that? If I tell you a story to make an important point, and the point is true, and the story itself is mostly true but has the occasional inaccuracy in it, what do you call that? If I say, "the sea is blue tonight", but people disagree about which shade of blue I meant and some argue that I was actually wrong because the color of the sea at this place and time would be more accurately described as green, what do you call that?

True as in "The word of God/The Gods"

[Constantinopolis]

Define "true".

If I write you a poem to express my feelings, and the feelings expressed in it are true (but the poem itself, being a poem, makes no sense at all when read literally), what do you call that? If I tell you a story to make an important point, and the point is true, and the story itself is mostly true but has the occasional inaccuracy in it, what do you call that? If I say, "the sea is blue tonight", but people disagree about which shade of blue I meant and some argue that I was actually wrong because the color of the sea at this place and time would be more accurately described as green, what do you call that?

Wrong.

All of the above are wrong? Ok then, in that case, I guess that Scripture, like almost everything that people say and write, is wrong. That is to say, it is not a 100% clinical and precise description of literal facts.